Author: Helena

Henri Nouwen on atrocity and violence

What a gift today was.
This morning in Quaker meeting I found myself reading a little book called “Peacework” by Henri Nouwen. I don’t usually read during worship, but today I just really felt led to do so. The book had been sitting on my shelf for a while, but today I took it to meeting with me and read the first of the three essays in it: “Prayer”.
Nouwen was a Catholic priest who was a theologian and peace activist before he passed away in 1996. He is the author of the theory of “The Wounded Healer“, which I think is a very powerful way of understanding the possibility (and limitations) of being a peacemaker in the world. I find him not quite as engaging a writer as Thomas Merton, but I think his understanding and explication of the roots and nature of of violence are extremely powerful.
Today in meeting for worship, I was riveted by this (Peacework, pp.28-29):

    When I listen to the sounds of greed, violence, rape, torture, murder, and indiscriminate destruction, I hear a long, sustained cry coming from all the corners of the world. It is the cry of a deeply wounded humanity that no longer knows a safe dwelling place but wanders around the planet in a desperate search for love and comfort.
    Needs that are anchored in wounds cannot be explained simply … This is the pervasive tragedy of humanity, the tragedy of the experience of homelessness that winds through history and is passed by each generation to the next in a seemingly unending sequence of human conflicts with even more destructive tools of rage in our hands. The vicious repetition of wounds and needs creates the milieu of “those who hate peace.” It is the dwelling place of demons. And it is a place that lures us precisely because we are all wounded and needy.

Anyway, he continues by arguing that to escape from these destructive (and multi-generational) cycles of wounds and needs we need to find our own sanctuary in prayer.
I also found this part very powerful (pp.34-35):

    It is not hard to see that the house of those who are fighting is a house ruled by fear. One of the most impressive characteristics of Jesus’ description of the end-time is the paralyzing fear that will make people senseless, causing them to run in all directions, so disoriented that they are swallowed up by the chaos that surrounds them. (Quote from Luke 21:25-26) … The advice that Jesus gives his followers for these times of turmoil is to remain quiet, confident, peaceful, and trusting in God. He tells them not to follow those who sow panic, nor to join those who claim to be saviors, nor to be frightened by rumors of wars and revolution, but “to stand erect and hold your heads high.” (Luke 21:28)…

This is, of course, very similar to the teaching of Thich Nhat Hanh that I wrote about here, back in December 2003.
(It was interesting to go back to that earlier JWN post and read that description of the experience of being in an 11 a.m. worship seession here in Charlottesville Friends Meeting. Today’s was very similar in size and spirit. Today there was a new baby, Theodore Staengl, gurgling and cooing in his baby-carrier on the floor. My friend Linda Goldstein’s dog started barking outside at one point. But the meeting felt extremely gathered to me– to the extent that when the kids came in at 11:45 I was amazed that so much time had passed already… )

Yet more US intervention in Iraqi politics

I’ll say this for Condi Rice and Zal Khalilzad, the US viceroy in Baghdad: They sure are tenacious… The kind of tenacious that causes our dog to hang onto an old piece of aluminum foil long after she’s licked the last trace of chicken-grease off it… The kind of tenacious that is quite useless and indeed often very counter-productive. (Chewed-up shards of aluminum foil all over the garden…)
I say this because honestly, I’d have thought that once Khalilzad lost his big tussle of wills with Iraq’s United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) bloc back on April 21, he would then step back and let the UIA– which did, after all, win easily the largest number of seats during Dec. 15’s free and fair parliamentary election– form the coalition that it wanted, and through which it might hope to govern.
But no.
I guess I should have started to understand Khalilzad’s(and Rice’s) extraordinarily pointless tenacity back on May 21, when Zal was reported to be intervening in the workings of the Iraqi parliament like “the elephant in the chamber.”
And now, here we are, two weeks after Nuri al-Maliki was designated as the head of the new “Iraqi government”, and he still hasn’t been able to name the key security ministers in it…
And the US bureaucrats are still butting majorly into Iraq’s internal political affairs….
In that report I linked to there AFP’s Kamal Taha wrote

    Maliki had originally chosen an independent military figure [for Interior Minister], but according to Shiite politicians, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), one of the most powerful Shiite parties, wanted one of its own in the post.
    US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Fox News on Sunday that Iraqi politicians will settle the issue in the “next few days.”
    “The important thing is that they get it right. And when they get it right, and they will get it right, everybody will forget how long it took them,” she said.
    A US official in Baghdad, however, said Washington was quite “disappointed” with the postponement and called for the political parties to support Maliki’s efforts to name a new government.
    “We’re quite disappointed at the lack of results in today’s parliament,” said the official, adding that the US believes strongly in the prime minister’s efforts to find qualified independent candidates.
    “We support him in these efforts and it is time for all leaders in the national unity government to get behind the prime minister,” the official added, singling out SCIRI for not supporting the prime minister

Well, that official is probably someone who works quite high up in Khalilzad’s office. Intriguingly enough, it now looks as though– in contrast to the position they took in the run-up to the choosing of the PM– this time, the US viceregal palace (a.k.a. the embassy) is campaigning against rather than for SCIRI. (Can anyone explain that more for me?)
But to me, that doesn’t make much difference. How come they have a view on this matter at all? Isn’t Iraq supposed to be independent?
And then, another question: What on earth difference will any of this make to the ignominious ending the Bush project in Iraq is headed for anyway? Aren’t they just seeking to prolong the agony there?
Oh, just bring the troops home, guys… Please! Their continued presence in Iraq is only continuing to sow horrendous violence among the Iraqi people. And for absolutely zero reason.
What was it the Vietnam vets used to say: Just how terrible is it to be the last person to die in a completely pointless war?

    Comments are back! And they’re back here, on this blog! With our very own new visual-verification anti-spam measure. Big thanks to the tech adviser… I’ll keep the ‘JWN Comments’ blog open, more or less as it is, in case we need to revert to that at some point. But for now, let the discussions resume here.

Peace and justice in Northern Uganda

Jonathan Edelstein has an excellent new post over at Transitional Justice Forum on the (apparently dysfunctional?) effect of the ICC prosecutor’s recent actions on the peace talks for Northern Uganda.

That post follows up on this May 19 one from him, on the same subject. I am so glad Jonathan’s keeping his eye on the northern Uganda issue so closely because it really is one of the important early tests of the infant International Criminal Court.
Also, if you go to TJF, you will find you can now post comments there. Hurrah! My son and tech adviser is in the process of fixing the glitches in comments-posting both there and here. But at JWN, for now, I’m going to keep the comments flow on the parallel comments blog, while we see if we can install a visual comment-verification filter here.
Please, if you have an interest in the issues Jonathan or others are writing about over at TJF– or, if you have any further questions about the subjects covered there– do send in some comments there!
Again, my general apologies for glitches in comment-submission service both here and there. We do what we can. I realise it ain’t perfect.

Darfur: the casualties

Estimating the casualties in a situation of inter-group conflict and mass mayhem is always difficult. But in a letter in today’s NYT, Ruth Messinger, the Executive Director of American Jewish World Service writes about Darfur that, “Half a million people are dead and 3.5 million are displaced, the victims of a genocide that uses rape, murder, assault, displacement, hunger and illness to claim its victims.”
I note that in an article at the end of April, the WaPo’s generally excellent and very careful Africa correspondent Emily Wax, reporting from the Chad-Darfur border, wrote only of “tens of thousands” dead from the genocidal violence in Darfur. Since then, there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of additional (mainly civilian) deaths– many of them having been caused by inter-necine fighting amongst the anti-Khartoum rebels. (As I noted here and here.)
Whom should we trust? Emily Wax, writing from the borderlands there, and based on her lengthy field reporting, knowledge of the situation, and contact with aid workers and community leaders of all persuasions– or Ruth Messinger, sitting in her office in New York City?
I have never previously seen any estimate as high as “half a million dead.” I have earlier seen estimates of 200,00, and 400,00 dead, that I already thought were very high. But they, at least, were described as “estimates.” Ruth Messinger now states as bald fact that “half a million” are dead because of the genocidaires there.
This matters. It is a basic principle of reporting of human rights abuses not to exaggerate, and where there is uncertainty always to err on the side of caution in one’s estimates. Exaggeration of casualty figures or of any other dimension of the abuses does not help anyone. Indeed, by making the person who exaggerates far less credible in general, it weakens the fabric of responsible human rights reporting and ends up doing a disservice to those people whose rights have been abused.
I see no possible basis in any reports that I have seen for any estimate anywhere near as high as “half a million deaths.”
Messinger wrote her letter in response to this op-ed by Alan Kuperman, that the NYT ran May 31 and that I commented on here.
This part of her letter seems a little confusing to me: “We do not tout the rebels as freedom fighters, nor have our actions fueled the genocide. That has been done by the Sudanese government…” (What? The Sudanese government has been touting the rebels as freedom fighters? H’mmm.)
I applaud her call that, “all armed actors … lay down their weapons, end the conflict and provide safe space for both civilians and humanitarian aid agencies that are saving lives.” But I really fear that by (a) exaggerating the number of those killed by the pro-government side beyond any reasonable estimates, and (b) making no mention whatsoever in her letter of the suffering caused by the rebels, she is being quite unfair and also further stoking the sentiments and energies of those who still want to act militarily against the Sudanese government and its allies.
Also, though Messinger’s letter was in response to the Alan Kuperman op-ed, she did nothing to challenge any of the very specific points he made about the dynamics of the situation inside Darfur.

New additions to Golden Oldies

I just put all those links to the 2003 Golden Oldies that used to clog up the sidebar here, over onto a separate web-page. Then I went through the January 2004 archives and culled the GO’s from there. So now you can find those on the sidebar.
It was quite interesting to go back and do this. I got a strong sense of, “My gosh, that was 29 months ago, but already so much of the havoc and violence that we have seen since then was becoming quite evident to me.”
I never thought the struggle to end of US-UK occupation of Iraq would be an easy or quick one…

Article on East Timor in TomPaine.com

I have a piece on TomPaine.com today, about East Timor.
It was a good experience working with them. Their turnround time on the piece was about one hour. So it was almost the same instant gratification I get from blogging, plus I got paid (a modest amount.) Does life get any better than this?
I don’t think they have comments there. You can go to the JWN comments blog and discuss Timor there.

A different window on Gaza

I know that the poverty and hunger statistics for Gaza are currently appalling. But it’s great to be reminded that the Strip has a fine and ancient culture, of which its food-prep culture is only a small part.
The inimitable Laila El-Haddad has a great piece about Gaza’s cuisine in the June edition of This week in Palestine. In it, she confronts head-on some of the stereotypes non-Gaza Palestinians hold about the Strip’s people. (“They are ‘brute’ and ‘unsophisticated,’ and what they lack in culture they make up for in strong-headedness.”) But she argues convincingly that, “Gaza boasts a unique cuisine rivalled in its variety only by its versatility of ingredients, with a flavour to satisfy every palate…”
She notes that the Gazan kitchen has been enriched by cultural interaction amongst the indigenous Gazans and that 80% of the Strip’s population who are 1948 refugees from surrounding towns and villages– and also, colored by the population’s experience of poverty:

    As far as Palestinian food goes, Gaza’s is characterized by its generous use of spices and, of course, chillies. Other major flavours and ingredients include dill, chard, garlic, cumin, lentils, chickpeas, pomegranates, sour plums and tamarind. Many of the traditional dishes rely on clay-pot cooking, which preserves the flavour and texture of the vegetables and results in fork-tender meat.
    Traditionally, most of the dishes, such as rummaniya, are seasonal and rely on ingredients indigenous to the area and its surrounding villages, pre-1948. Poverty has also played an important role in determining many of the area’s simple meatless dishes and stews, such as saliq wa adas (chard and lentils) and bisara (skinless fava beans mashed with dried mulukhiya leaves, chilli, dill seed and garlic). One cannot discount the influence of the 1948 Nakba, which resulted in an influx of refugees from all over Palestine’s coast, tripling Gaza’s population overnight. Many of them were fellahin (peasants) who would rely on eating seasonally, based on what they grew, and who brought with them a variety of flavours and ingredients, especially those that were easy to carry and cook in the harsh conditions of the exile they were forced to live in, as many first-generation refugees testify.
    Due to the Strip’s geographic isolation from the rest of Palestine as a result of decades of occupation and Israeli-imposed closures, many of its dishes have not been heard of outside of Gaza…

I can tell you, from the couple of times I was lucky enough to be included in an El-Haddad family meal when I was in Gaza, that these dishes are really tasy– and far, far spicier than most Palestinian cuisine. In fact, I think Laila’s mom, Um Tarek (who’s a retired pediatrician) should maybe plan a new career as a cookbook writer.
Anyway, go read Laila’s whole article. It will make your mouth water.

Dozier, Brolan, and Douglas

So our friend Dr. David Steinbruner was actually involved in treating the courageous and smart CBS News correspondent Kimberley Dozier after her near-fatal injury in Iraq Monday.
Dozier’s colleagues James Brolan and Paul Douglas were killed in that attack. When I was working in Lebanon during the war there, my husband was a TV cameraman. I know that those guys (and the still photogs) run the very biggest risks of anyone.
Deep condolences to Brolan and Douglas’s families.
And my prayers for Dozier’s best possible recovery. (I think that Scott Harrop, who actually knew Dozier fairly well when she was a grad student in Middle East affairs here at Virginia some dozen years ago, is going to post more here about her.)
Dozier is now in Landstuhl military hospital, in Germany. CBS’s latest report states:

    Dozier was under heavy sedation when her parents, siblings and boyfriend arrived, hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw said. Still, Dozier reacted to the arrival of her boyfriend, Shaw added.
    “She was aware of his presence. She is still very seriously injured, but she’s stable and she responds to stimuli,” Shaw said.
    Dozier is in critical but stable condition and, according to a statement from CBS, is “resting comfortably today after receiving further treatment for injuries to her head and legs.” “We are encouraged by reports from Dozier’s doctors about the outcome of her recent surgeries,” the statement continued.

David S. has meanwhile been doing a fabulous job as a combat ER doc there in Baghdad. In one of the reflections he sent us, he wrote movingly about how agonizing he found it that according to the military orders under which he works that ER there is allowed to treat only members of the US and “coalition” militaries and members of a small number of other designated groups like some US and coalition non-military people and some Iraqi military people.
It would be great if every person injured in the war in Iraq could receive treatment as expert as Dozier has received.
Of course, if there were not a war in Iraq, none of this would have happened.

Bushites ready to talk with Iran?

Anne Gearan of AP is reporting this:

    The United States is prepared to join other nations in holding direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program if Iran first agrees to stop disputed nuclear activities that the West fears could lead to a bomb, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday.
    “To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table,” Rice said in remarks prepared for delivery at the State Department.
    The Swiss ambassador to the United States was called to the State Department earlier Wednesday to receive a copy of Rice’s remarks for transmission to Iran, U.S. officials said. The United States has had no diplomatic ties with Iran and few contacts at all with its government since Islamic radicals took over the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and held diplomats there for more than a year.
    The United States and the European nations that led stalled talks with Iran last year have agreed on the basics of a package of incentives for Iran if it is willing to give up its disputed activities, Rice said.
    “We hope that in the coming days the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal,” Rice said.
    White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States will not enter one-on-one talks with Iran. The European talks included Britain, France and Germany.
    The United States has refused repeated calls from European nations, other leading diplomats and former U.S. secretaries of state to join the talks or make other diplomatic overtures to Iran.
    The agreement to join talks now represents a major shift in policy for the Bush administration, which has been deeply suspicious of Iran’s intentions and the prime mover for tough United Nations action against the clerical regime.
    Iran has so far refused to do what the U.S. is now demanding as a first step to talks. Iran did voluntarily suspend those activities while talks were active with the Europeans last year, but resumed and stepped up those activities this spring.

This is a significant new development. When Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a long letter to Pres. Bush ten days ago, that was the first direct Iranian communication to Washington since 1979. The Bushites immediately tried to publicly deride Ahmadinejad’s letter. But evidently they have since then thought a bitharder about thematter– and indeed about the whole very pro-Iran balance of power in the Gulf region– and have decided to counter with this letter. (Switzerland has acted as the diplomatic go-between for the two governments ever since relations were broken off in 1979.)
This new Rice letter will not immediately open up a direct channel between Washington and Teheran. Indeed, that is not what Rice and Bush are aiming to do at this point… Instead, they are only saying they’ll join unspecified “other nations”– maybe just the EU-3, or maybe also China and Russia?– in holding talks with Teheran… And that, only in response to serious further concessions from Teheran on the nuclear-fuels issue.
Still, what a relief to see the Bushites even starting to move in this direction… This, at a time when the rightwing and neocon networks are all still baying for military action and regime change in Iran.